the judge becomes “a bit of a sentencing machine”, regrets a lawyer

The deputies voted unanimously to withdraw parental authority from a parent convicted of violence against a child or a spouse. An automaticity to which the lawyer Anne Bouillon, specialized in women’s rights, is however not favorable.

“I am not in favor of automaticity” the withdrawal of parental authority in the event of violence, because the judge becomes “a bit of a pain vending machine”, estimated Friday, February 10 on franceinfo master Anne Bouillon, lawyer specializing in women’s and family law. At the initiative of PS MP Isabelle Santiago, the deputies voted unanimously on Thursday evening to withdraw parental authority from a father or mother convicted by the courts of incest, a crime against their child or spouse. 400,000 children live in homes where domestic violence reigns. This text “is going in the right direction, but automaticity deprives the judge of his ability to judge. It saves us from explaining why it is important to withdraw parental authority. I prefer a debate in the courtroom”she explained

franceinfo: What exactly does “more parental authority” mean?

Anne Bouillon: This means that the exercise of the prerogatives of parental authority is then devolved to a single parent and in this case, to the one who is not questioned or who is not the perpetrator of violence. This means that when it comes to deciding for the child where he will go to school, his travels abroad, his religious education, his medical treatment, when it comes to taking all the big decisions that educate our children, then only one of the parents can make it. The other parent retains a right to be informed, but is no longer the decision maker.

How do you explain that today the withdrawal of parental authority is not automatic?
This is explained first by the texts. It is part of judicial customs to discuss this issue. Should we allow parental authority to be exercised jointly by two parents, one of whom suffers the violence of the other or one of whom has committed violence against a child, the two possibly being synonymous? We know very well that conjugal violence is violence that also occurs to children. This question is being asked more and more frequently in the courts. She receives a disparate response, even if the tendency is indeed that a bad spouse is necessarily a bad parent. The second reason for which it is applied little or not enough is due to our culture. We come to touch an extremely important figure that is parental authority.

“I see many accused people in the courtrooms, not discussing the criminal sanctions but bracing themselves when it comes to removing parental authority from them. It is experienced as an absolute forfeiture.”

Anne Bouillon, lawyer specializing in women’s and family law

at franceinfo

We come to touch an extremely strong symbol and an extremely powerful prerogative in our patriarchal culture.

Are you for automaticity?

At the risk of surprising you and despite all my commitment, I am not in favor of automaticity. I think that automaticity is dangerous, even if there is a safety valve which is provided for by the text. The judge can, by a specially reasoned decision, consider that… I can clearly see the strong signal that is being sent and why the legislator wishes to go in this direction. It’s going in the right direction, but automaticity deprives the judge of his ability to judge and saves us the trouble of explaining why it is important to withdraw parental authority. I prefer a debate in the courtroom. I prefer to discuss, I prefer to convince, even if people tell me I’m wrong. I prefer to debate. And then, there are marginal situations where parental authority should not be withdrawn. For example, when there has been an epiphenomenon of violence and both parents may have rediscovered the path of communication. They wish, after this episode of violence, because there is a work of introspection that has been done, to continue raising their children together. It exists. So the automaticity of sentences makes the judge a bit of an automatic sentencing machine.

Maintaining parental authority can harm the child, but also the other parent?

We know it well. We have to analyze what is happening on a case-by-case basis, that is to say, we must at the same time mark the fact that it is no longer acceptable to consider that a violent parent is a good parent . That era is over.

“This is what is called the continuum of violence, that is to say that parental authority is invested as a means of continuing to put pressure on the other parent, not to impose something in the case of a co-education, but just to hinder the other parent.”

Anne Bouillon

at franceinfo

I remember women I defended. They were told: “certainly your husband hit you, but Madame, know how to see the father who is in your husband and respect his place as father.” This speech kind of fizzled out. Nevertheless, I think that you should never refrain from studying situations on a case-by-case basis.


source site-30